The number one most emailed story in today’s New York Times, is one entitled New Hints Seen That Red Wine May Slow Aging, by Nicholas Wade. This article revisits some of the previous research demonstrating that one of the active ingredients in red wine, resveratrol, has been shown to prolong life in mice. Newer research apparently shows that these effect may occur at far lower doses than those previously reported.
Separately […], a research team led by Tomas A. Prolla and Richard Weindruch, of the University of Wisconsin, reports in the journal PLoS One on Wednesday that resveratrol may be effective in mice and people in much lower doses than previously thought necessary. In earlier studies, like Dr. Auwerx’s of mice on treadmills, the animals were fed such large amounts of resveratrol that to gain equivalent dosages people would have to drink more than 100 bottles of red wine a day.
The Wisconsin scientists used a dose on mice equivalent to just 35 bottles a day. But red wine contains many other resveratrol-like compounds that may also be beneficial. Taking these into account, as well as mice’s higher metabolic rate, a mere four, five-ounce glasses of wine “starts getting close” to the amount of resveratrol they found effective, Dr. Weindruch said.
The bottom line is that the amount of resveratrol in red wine is so tiny that even if this one ingredient is truly related to longevity, one couldn’t possible consume enough wine to gain any benefit along these lines.
The hoohah surrounding this report and others like it is that it can only mean bad things for all of us, but most importantly, me. Most people will not read the fine print and immediately run out and buy up red wine, which will of course result in price increases across the board. That is bad for me and for anyone who enjoys drinking wine because they enjoy drinking wine.
But what is even worse in my mind, is the underlying assumption that scientists are going to be able to isolate a single substance that, once ingested, will have the single desirable effect of lengthening one’s life. This represents but a small subset of the mindset that allows us to think that simple manipulations of our biology by exogenous compounds will cure what ails us. Anyone remember oat bran as a cure for cholesterol? Wilfred Brimley aside, there has never been a single study demonstrating that it has any effect. If you haven’t already, read anything by Michael Pollan to see what a really smart guy thinks about this. His advice “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants” is right on point.
People rightly worry about what they put in their bodies. If you’re diabetic, for example, it would be wise to limit the amount of simple carbohydrates and sugars you eat. That said, our bodies are incredibly complex and it is simply folly to think that varying one aspect of our biology will have only one desired outcome—hence the term side effects. As for me, I may indeed choose to suck down 4-5 glasses of wine a night, but if I do so, it won’t be because I need to get a dose of resveratrol. It will be because I’ve turned into a wino.
Michael Pollan is my #2 HERO! The writer of this blog is #1.
Eat food, drink wine, and everything in moderation… including moderation.
Left by Nattu Swiete on June 4th, 2008